x_api_delete_all_connections

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it states the mutating/high-risk nature, required bearer token, environment-selection behavior for scope parameters, safety warnings, expected response shape, and common failure conditions. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but extremely well-structured with labeled sections: Use when, Do not use when, Risk, Prerequisites, Environment-selection behavior, Parameter formats, Expected response shape, Failure conditions, Recommended tools, Safety warnings, and Example. Every section adds value, and the example at the end is practical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, high-risk tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: operation, usage boundaries, permissions, environment scope, response shape, failure modes, recommended companion tools, and an example. It is effectively complete for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains the meaning of scopeTenantId, the XOR relationship of scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. It mentions authorizationKey in safety warnings, but does not fully clarify preferredAuthType. Given empty schema, this partial compensation is good but not complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Terminate all connections', a specific verb+resource statement. The word 'all' distinguishes this from sibling deletion tools like x_api_delete_connections_by_uuids or x_api_delete_connections_by_endpoint, making the scope unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a 'Use when' (though tautological) and a 'Do not use when' that explicitly points to x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration and to more specific auth/configuration tools when needed. It also lists recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools, but does not explicitly compare with other connection-deletion siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.